Stephen, J. Cabot blog

May 7, 2010

FREE SPEECH FOR UNIONS, NOT FOR CORPORATIONS

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 12:53 pm

This article was originally published on StephenCabotBlog.com: http://www.stephencabotblog.com.

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

The Obama administration was sorely disappointed when the U. S. Supreme Court, in its Citizens United decision, held that limits on campaign contributions by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The administration specifically disagreed with the Court’s decision as it related to corporations, not as it related to unions. President Obama made his displeasure apparent during his State of the Union address, when he none-too-delicately criticized the Supreme Court.

Now, Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill that would restrict the free speech of corporations, while permitting unions to spend as much as they want for political issues and campaigns.

The proposed legislation would prohibit recipients of TARP funds as well as government contractors from spending money on political campaigns. Unions that have contracts with the government, however, would be free to spend as much as they want.

This is another blatant example of the Obama administration favoring unions over corporations, of shackling corporate America with one set of rules while unleashing unions to pursue their goals. A greatly circumscribed free market, which seems to be the focus of the Obama administration, will limit the country’s opportunities for economic growth and prosperity.

April 15, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PRO-UNION PUSH

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:32 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot

 

 

The Executive Order for Project Labor Agreements, which had been issued by President Obama, has gone into effect this week. The rule encourages federal agencies to require that any company that performs a construction project for the government should have a unionized workforce, if the construction project costs more than $25-million.

 

Since only 15% of construction workers are unionized, 85% of construction workers will now be ineligible for government projects that cost more than $25-million. As a result, either workers will demand that they be represented by unions, which will drive up labor costs; or, more likely, non-union workers will not have an opportunity to work on government construction projects. This will prove highly injurious to companies and workers alike.

 

Since the construction industry currently has one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates, at 27%, President Obama’s Order will only serve to drive up that figure.

 

In addition, the use of unionized companies will significantly reduce competitive bidding for projects, which will result in increased costs. That burden will add to the deficit and become an additional responsibility of tax payers.

 

Numerous studies have demonstrated that project labor agreements increase costs by up to 20% and invite significant cost overruns, just look at Boston’s Big Dig.

 

Workers should have the freedom to choose whether or not to join a union. The government’s action limits that freedom, propelling workers into the avaricious arms of organized labor while worsening the American economy.

April 9, 2010

THE NLRB POSES A THREAT TO CORPORATE AMERICA

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:26 pm

 THE NLRB POSES A THREAT TO CORPORATE AMERICA

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

 

It is no secret that a Democratic majority on the National Labor Relations Board would favor unions. If one of those is a former union lawyer who believes that the Employee Free Choice Act should become law, the putative impartiality of the NLRB could be abrogated with the stroke of a pen.

 

Craig Becker, who was appointed to the Board by President Obama during the spring recess of Congress (an action known as a presidential recess appointment), will decidedly and perhaps aggressively tilt the Board to an unfair and dangerous pro-union position.

 

Mr. Becker, who was a top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Democrat Mark Pearce, will give the Board a three-vote Democratic majority.  There had been just one Democrat and one Republican on the Board prior to the appointments of Becker and Pearce. The Board should have five members.

 

Many in Corporate America as well as students of labor relations and pro-management attorneys believe that the newly composed Board will act to affirm a pending petition that would require employers to bargain with unions that represent less than a majority number of any employer’s workers. In addition, it is also believed that the Board will vote to shorten the period of time from when an organizing petition is accepted by the Board and when a vote is held. While the Employee Free Choice Act may be doomed in Congress, the acts of the NLRB could now advance the mission of unions so that more and more workers become unionized and labor costs skyrocket. It is essential, therefore, that Corporate America invests in strategic action plans for union avoidance as well as plans to achieve decertification of unions already in place.

 

A dark cloud is hanging over Corporate America, and only if it implements a pro-active battle plan will the sun shine again on our traditional free enterprise system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 26, 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA PLAYS THREE CARD MONTE WITH THE NLRB

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:04 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot

 

The National Labor Relations Board needs a quorum of three.  If President Obama hopes to enact his pro-union agenda, he will need to have another pro-union advocate on the NLRB. He won’t say who is the pro-union advocate; he won’t even say that there is a pro-union advocate.

 

But as the names are flipped from hand to hand, one name keeps turning up. And if you guessed Craig Becker, you would be right.

 

According to The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) “In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article [Becker] said that the ‘core defect in union election law…is the employer’s status as a party to labor representation proceedings’ and that ‘employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.’”

 

If an NLRB member believes that employers should not be permitted to educate their employees about he disadvantages of unionization, he can hardly be considered a fair minded adjudicator of labor issues.

 

Yet, according to Senator Tom Harkin, President Obama will appoint Craig Becker to the NLRB during the Easter recess. It’s called a recess appointment, and it’s an end run around the Senate.  No votes are required.

 

With his pro-union advocates on the NLRB, President Obama will have won his three card Monte game, for no matter which member Corporate America appeals to, the results will always favor the union.

 

March 19, 2010

MORE AIRLINES TO UNIONIZE, LABOR COSTS TO ERASE PROFITS

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 2:55 pm

FROM THE DESK OF STEPHEN CABOT

 

According to a recent report by Market Watch, we can expect more airline employees to join unions, driving up labor costs and the cost of flying. While traveling by air has been somewhat unpleasant over the last few years, one can now expect it to become more expensive, not only for tickets, but also for basic amenities.

A new organizing rule is to blame for what’s about to happen. Under the new rule, the agency that referees labor relations for airlines and its employees would permit workers to join a union if a majority of those workers votes for unionization. In the past, those who did not vote had their absent ballots counted as no votes; now, those absent ballots will count as yes votes! It will likely mean that airlines will have tens of thousands of newly unionized employees. Increased wages and benefits would leave airlines no alternative but to increase the fees that are charged to flyers.

There are currently 75 union contracts being negotiated in the airline industry. And each of those negotiating airlines will now face a major threat to its profitability. The Association of Flight Attendants, for one, has already made it known that it will attempt to organize 20,000 attendants at Delta Air Lines, and that’s just the beginning of a devastating industry trend. The management of American and United Airlines are currently negotiating multiple open contracts, and under the new rule, profits at both carriers could be wiped out.  

The new rule is a direct result of a pro-union policy emanating out of the White House and promoted by union officials who frequently meet behind closed doors with President Obama. The rule is not only injurious to the airline industry; it is also injurious to the entire national economy.

 

 

.

March 12, 2010

UNIONS INVESTING MILLIONS TO ELECT PRO-UNION LEGISLATORS

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:50 pm

From the desk of Stephen Cabot:

 

It’s no secret that unions are extremely unhappy with many Democratic legislators who have failed to support the proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) as well as other pro-union measures. Now those unions are supporting a host of Democratic candidates who have promised, that if elected, they will support the EFCA.

 

One need only look at the primary battle facing Blanche Lincoln for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Arkansas. Four unions have pledged $4 million to defeat Senator Lincoln in the primary and to elect Lt. Governor Bill Halter.

 

In addition, the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) will endorse pro-union Democratic candidates in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.

 

While President Obama decried the recent Supreme Court decision permitting corporations to invest in political candidates, he did not complain about unions doing the same thing. And now that the Supreme Court has opened the door to increased spending, unions are going to invest millions of dollars to make sure that their chosen candidates get elected.

 

While many in Corporate America breathed a sigh of relief that the EFCA was dead, it could come back to life if new union-backed candidates are elected to the US Senate.

February 26, 2010

PEW RESEARCH: UNIONS’ FAVORABILITY RATINGS DROP

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 4:15 pm

According to The Pew Research Center for People and the Press, the public has an increasingly unfavorable opinion of unions. A mere 41% of the general public has a favorable opinion of unions, while 42% expressed an unfavorable opinion of unions. Such figures contrast dramatically with those ascertained  in January 2007 when 58% of the public had a favorable opinion of unions, while only 31% had an unfavorable opinion.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted its survey from February 3 to 9 and queried 1,383 adults via cell phones and landlines. According to the survey, “61% agreed with the statement ‘labor unions are necessary to protect the working person,’ down from 68% in 2007 and 74% in 2003. In the same survey, six-in-ten (61%) agreed that ‘labor unions have too much power,’ up from 52% in 1999.

The survey ratifies a belief that we have been espousing for some time that unions no longer represent the best interests of workers. The public realizes that if America is to maintain its position as a world economic leader it must support innovation, entrepreneurship, and capital investment in the future. Unions are often an obstacle to all three.

No matter how much support unions give to President Obama and how much he does their bidding, the public believes that the era of the union as the best representative of workers is rapidly fading and will soon become utterly superfluous.

 

 

February 19, 2010

PLAY BALL!

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 5:50 pm

 

With the start of the  baseball season just around the corner, players and owners have much to consider. To wit: stadium attendance has dropped by more than 6%, and the collective bargaining agreement of the baseball franchises expires just after the 2011 season. Thus far, there has been scant news about disputes between management and players; however, that is not necessarily an indication that numerous dissatisfactions aren’t brewing.

According to an article in New York Newsday, Bud Selig stated: “I’ve been thinking about it [the collective bargaining agreement] a lot. (Major League Baseball executive vice president of labor relations and human resources) Rob Manfred and I have a lot of conversations about it. Rarely do I have it off my mind. We’ve had 14 straight seasons of uninterrupted action, though, featuring two CBAs negotiated peacefully. The first one, in 2002, went down to the final minutes. The more recent one, in 2006, reached agreement months before the deadline. That history must count for something, to both sides, as do the relatively positive relationships that have been constructed.”

While the Obama administration is attempting to push forward its pro-union agenda, baseball fans, disturbed by past labor conflicts, are generally hopeful that there will be no strike to disrupt the call of “Play Ball.” And not only the fans, but also the owners and players are hopeful that labor peace can be maintained.

In fact, professional baseball may offer an example of how labor and management can cooperate for the overall good of the economy. Corporate America and organized labor both have a vital stake in increased productivity, profitability, and cooperation. And that can be achieved by putting aside petty differences and working together to bring about shared goals. The adversarial culture, which often permeates all aspects of labor relations, is an obstacle that both sides should work to eliminate, regardless of who in Washington is pushing a pro-union agenda.

January 22, 2010

AN OVERLOOKED ELEMENT IN THE GREAT MASS UPSET

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , — Stephen Cabot @ 1:41 pm

 

According to various polls, most Americans believe that unions have often been an obstacle, standing in the way of American companies being able to compete with foreign-based and non-union companies. One need only look at the sorry state of GM.

 

In addition, Americans have not voiced approval for President Obama’s pro-union activities, such as attempting to staff the NLRB with pro-union advocates and cozying up to the leaders of the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO. Leaders of both unions have been frequent visitors to the White House.

 

Though many commentators noted Senate candidate Martha Coakley’s gaff about the Boston Red Sox, there was also another element responsible for her loss to Senator Scott Brown.  Seemingly unaware of public sentiment about unions, Ms. Coakley announced during her campaign that she supported the Teamsters’ efforts to organize the workers of FedEx. She stated that she supported the Express Carrier Employee Protection Act.  “As someone deeply committed to ensuring a level playing field for our workforce, I am pleased to support this legislation that will end FedEx’s unfair ability to deny workers’ rights,” stated Ms. Coakley. She didn’t, of course, state that consumers are pleased with the services that they get from FedEx. Furthermore, she did not state that many FedEx drivers prefer the opportunity to own their own routes, be their own bosses, buy additional routes, and enjoy the opportunity of earning as much money as their ambitions and energies permit. By accepting union support and not balancing that with the sentiments of the electorate, she self-destructively hammered another nail into her own political coffin.

 

Driving around during the campaign in his pick-up truck, Scott Brown seemed to voters as independent and as free of union influence as FedEx drivers. It’s just another reason why Massachusetts voters went to the polls to express their own independence. Being a union stooge is no way to run for political office.

January 8, 2010

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION?

Filed under: Employee Free Choice Act,stephen cabot — Tags: , , , , , , , — Stephen J. Cabot @ 1:01 pm

 

People are often judged by the company they keep. That is why probation officers direct ex-convicts not to associate with other criminals.

 

Should Corporate America judge President Obama by the company that he keeps?

 

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Anna Burger, Secretary-Treasurer, have visited the White House 60 times. Ms. Burger also serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. There have also been numerous visits by other union leaders, such as Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO and Lou Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers.

Big labor had ensured such entrée by the amount of money it spent on the 2008 election: approximately $450 million; of that sum, $85 million was spent by SEIU.

What do these cozy relationships portend for Corporate America? To begin, there will be the Employee Free Choice Act, which will be introduced this year. Card checks and government administered binding arbitration will not be the only bad news for corporations. Unions would also like Congress to pass a tax-payer funded union pension bailout. Unions want President Bush’s union reporting requirements about union finances watered down, so that unions would no longer have to reveal how they spend their political dollars. Unions also want more stimulus money to be devoted to preserving unionized government jobs as well as preferential treatment for union contractors. And finally, unions want to make sure that the National Labor Relations Board is staffed by pro-union advocates.

Mothers throughout America warn their impressionable children that they will be judged by who their friends are. Corporate America needs no such warning: the writing is on the walls of union halls and the White House.

Older Posts »